Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Sudafed (Score 2) 333

When will the US stop deluding itself and simply purchase bulk poppies from farmers in Central and South America who simply want a source of income? This will reduce the number of people who trade in the black market and reduce the opium available for heroin production

Because then the CIA would have no source of 'black' income and means to bribe officials/governments with...

Comment: Re:Marketing Failure (Score 1) 199

My guess is businesses will continue to use WSUS to manage the rollout and testing of updates, without the hassle of major version updates.

Those the the overhead to maintain a reasonably large IT department will be able to, but small business will see themselves getting hit with things breaking whenever an update is applied.

There has to be a good way of rolling back an update to regain functionality.

Comment: Re:IPv6's day will come, but... (Score 1) 390

by FireFury03 (#49523063) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

So, the designers of IPv6 could not conceive that somebody could have less than 2^64 devices and still want to put them in separate networks?

Networks are allocated as /64 chunks because it makes autoconfiguration easy. It is often argued by newcomers that this is a huge waste, but really, 128 bits gives you so many addresses that you can stand to do a bit of wasting in order to make things simple. Generally the "what a waste" crowd severely underestimate just how big 128 bits is.

So now my ISP will have a say in how many internal networks I have?

Yes and no. You _can_ allocate networks smaller than a /64, but you can't use SLAAC on such networks. That means you're stuck manually configuring devices or using DHCPv6. I believe Android has no support for DHCPv6, so you're probably very restricted if you choose to use a nonstandard network size.

And this is supposed to be better than IPV4 with NAT?

Oddly enough, yes - ISPs really shouldn't be restricting your internal infrastructure. If your ISP is being a dick about this then the answer is pretty obvious - switch to another ISP, it isn't as if ISPs are thin on the ground.

Comment: Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score 3, Insightful) 390

by FireFury03 (#49518233) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

People who think they need end-to-end connectivity for everything don't understand networking. It's not only not required, it is undesirable in most cases.

Its undesirable in _some_ cases, it's absolutely required in others. So if you have a single IP address and you have to NAT everything, you win in the "some cases" situation and you lose for "others" (even worse with CGNAT). If you get rid of NAT and stick a stateful firewall in, you get the best of both worlds and can choose the best for the situation at hand.

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please reauthorize.

Working...